24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖

wrzhenhao

新虫 (初入文坛)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 50
帖子: 2
在线: 53分钟
虫号: 3281746
注册: 2014-06-19

[求助] 这样的审稿意见，文章还有必要修改么已有23人参与

Reviewer 1's Comments:
1. No contribution

2. The previous works are not got involved sufficiency.

3. The real design should be given

4. The comparison should be stated.

Reviewer 2's Comments:
The paper is not written comprehenssive manner. It has many grammetical errors. There is no match between simulated and measurements.

Reviewer 3's Comments:
1. This paper is based on the author's previous work compact CPW-Fed antenna printed on a single layer inexpensive FR4 substrate. However, the author did not provide main physical analysis why they proposed to use such FR4 substrate other than inexpensive reason.

2. The author should provide more detain how the author use optimization to obtain the proper size of each element.

3. Comparison between the proposed work with their previous should be demonstrated and outlined the significant difference among the proposed work and others.

Reviewer 4's Comments:
The authors need to improve the gramma of the submitted manuscript. Technically, I also cannot recommend the publication of this paper with its current writing. The CPW fed UWB folded antenna has been discussed a lot. The contribution of the proposed topology by loading stubs along the feeds is not significant. Actually, some descriptions sound wrong technically.

Four types of loading stubs are discussed, however, the second and third are exactly the same. The authors claimed that the loaded inductance will be increased for the first one, which is not correct. Because, if two shunt stubs are connected in parallel, the inductance will be reduced by half. Also, the quality of the figure drawing needs to be improved. On the other hand, I would like to suggest the authors to study the parasitic effects of this structures, which can help to understand the working principle of this monopole type antenna.

回复此楼